The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate has brought out
the best in our bishops. From the moment the Obama Administration first floated
the idea of comprehensive healthcare that would include mandatory coverage of
abortifacients and contraceptives, the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops (USCCB) made no bones about what their objections to such a plan would
be. And when this legislation ultimately passed as the Affordable Care Act
(ACA), the USCCB wasted no time mounting a legal challenge to the
implementation of this onerous clause, which they rightly declared a violation
of religious liberty.

Seeing Church teaching publically reaffirmed in such a
dramatic way has been a long time coming. While the bishops’ recent action has
been exemplary, to a vast swatch of the American public their current stance is
nothing short of baffling. Most people simply had no idea the Church has
maintained any sort of official objection to the practice of artificial
contraception. Our clergy has been all but silent on the subject since 1968,
and our parishes are populated for the most part with two-child families, like
every other denomination tethered to the gospel of prosperity.

Even if the hierarchy wins repeal of the federally-mandated
obligation to fund contraceptive coverage, they have another, far more daunting
challenge ahead of them. Namely, reasserting Church teaching on sexual morality
to the rank-and-file in the pews. Not long ago, an archdiocesan representative
gave a presentation on “Women’s Health and Family Planning” at a neighboring
parish. His talk centered on the method of monitoring a woman’s fertile cycle known
as Natural Family Planning (NFP). In the Q&A session that followed, this
gentleman stressed that if we want to pursue NFP further, we should expect no
formal support from either our pastors or Archdiocesan headquarters. In this
age of massive Catholic contraction, there are no resources available for
anything new. What a shame. Natural Family Planning is the appropriate Catholic
antidote to the contraceptive mentality that is today’s coin of the realm. And
it needs to graduate from its current status as a quirky, grassroots movement.

There are now multiple NFP programs available, including the
Couple-to-Couple League (CCL), founded by John and Sheila Kippley in 1971. It
may be too late to save my wayward generation (b. 1954), but there is still
time to help the children and grandchildren coming up behind us. Whenever the
USCCB decides to pursue the widespread re-promulgation that is so desperately
needed, it should enlist the Couple-to-Couple League to spearhead an
all-inclusive, no diocese-gets-to-opt-out teaching initiative. NFP should
become a mandatory part of every Pre-Cana program across the country.

INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE AND FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES

As our bishops have taken their principled stand, “liberal”
and “conservative” Catholics have responded in predicable fashion. The former,
citing the primacy of individual conscience, have complained the Church has no
business telling them what they can and cannot do. While the latter, barely
able to contain their glee over the political ramifications of the botched
healthcare.gov roll-out, have given the bishops’ action scant attention. They
are focused instead on turning the President’s gaffe into an electoral windfall
in the next elections.

It is unfortunate these political partisans are monopolizing
the healthcare discussion. And it is even more unfortunate Catholics who
consider themselves “traditional” and “orthodox” are being swayed by the
talking points. We are daily inundated with descriptions of “a vast government
take-over of the healthcare system” that will result in “the loss of freedom to
choose one’s own provider”. We’ve also been warned of “massive inefficiencies
that will lead to increased costs”. And finally, in an attempt to rein in those
costs, we will see the “rationing of care” for the old and marginalized, in the
form of “death squads”.

None of which makes any sense, no matter how often it gets
repeated. Obamacare was inspired by a similar plan successfully implemented by
a Republican governor of recent vintage, based on principles outlined by a
highly respected conservative think tank. The “individual mandate” that is now
the centerpiece of Obamacare was in fact the conservatives’ alternative to a
mandate on employers. The health care exchanges are yet another conservative
alternative to government-provided medicine on the Medicare model. (In a final
bit of irony, the roll-out was supposed to happen at the state level, not the
federal level, but the sitting Republicans governors refused to set up the
necessary state exchanges.) Does anyone seriously think “free market”
healthcare offers any real “choice”? Or not realize care is already being
rationed under our present adversarial system of competing interests? And that
care will only be further rationed if we maintain our existing system, and
costs continue to escalate at their current annual clip?

Apart from the mandate for contraceptive coverage, which
is of course completely untenable, the ACA may very well have shortcomings
worthy of legitimate criticism. But things should be kept in perspective. The only
reason our clunky, uninspired government is trying to introduce a new
healthcare paradigm is the existing free market paradigm does not work very
well. At least not for the majority of citizens it is supposed to serve. We may
not like what the administration has come up with so far. But we should at
least admit the federal government is once again being forced into trying to
clean up a mess left behind by the free market, as per usual.

The business of insurance has always been a managed affair,
based on actuarial tables, designed to spread the risk of exposure over a broad
segment of the population. The objective is always to sign up as many policy
holders as possible who will never need the coverage they dutifully pay for,
year after year. To criticize Obamacare because it requires the addition of
young, healthy people onto the rolls, to bring down costs for the unhealthy
people who need the most medical attention, is to perpetuate a willful
ignorance about the nature of insurance. We may initially recoil at the
conscription, and at the fines for failure to sign up. But this should be
weighed against the astronomical costs of the medical product for those who
require it. Along with contemplating that the odds of our one day getting older
and falling into the same “needs serious health care” category are quite high.

MEDICAL INSURANCE

Medical insurance differs from other types of insurance. Every
single one of us has a body that will most likely require the attention of a
medical professional at some point in time. Whereas not everyone owns a house
or a car or some other object that typically benefits from being insured. This
is why universal healthcare should be the law of the land. The only thing
standing in the way of adopting such universal coverage is our devotion to the
principles of free market capitalism. Where profit (not the common good) is the
only motivator and competition (not cooperation) is the only regulator.

Free market slogans such as “personal choice” may appeal to
our sense of rugged individualism, but have a hollow ring in this context. As
do phrases such as “trusting people to make their own healthcare decisions.” When
one has symptoms in dire need of immediate diagnosis, one is not in a position
to carefully consider the options, as if buying a refrigerator. After suffering
a heart attack, one does not proceed to shop around for a more affordable heart
surgeon. Simply put, healthcare by its very nature does not lend itself to a
market-based solution. But we keep trying to fit a round peg into a square
hole. We have adopted the free market as our one, true religion, and assume its
inner dynamic can be applied to solve every societal problem.

Invoking the beautiful Catholic concept of subsidiarity
cannot salvage routine criticism of the new healthcare law, and render that
criticism relevant. It’s hard to search out one’s local mom-and-pop
cardiologist or neurosurgeon for a personal one-on-one consultation, without
involving a higher order of authority. These specialists are in all cases
affiliated with large, multi-million dollar institutions. When one falls ill,
one has no choice but to confront the medical Leviathan, whether one wants to
or not.

There is a veritable army of dedicated souls employed in the
healthcare field, who give their all whenever a needy patient crosses their
path. This debate is not in any way an indictment of such devoted
practitioners. The discussion is centered on the system within which these
individuals are forced to function. Like all free market activity, healthcare
is a profit-generating enterprise. It is difficult to reconcile the profit
motive that animates capitalism, with the common good which according to
Catholic social teaching should be the object of all economic activity. And
nowhere is the contradiction more evident than in the realm of healthcare. The
natural inclination of caregivers may indeed be altruistic and noble, but the
economic structure in which they operate is oriented to the bottom line.

VESTED INTERESTS

Though we never hear it debated in these terms, any attempt
at serious healthcare reform immediately runs afoul of vested interests
prepared to fight to the death rather than see their profit margins
compromised. And who can blame them? Why should one component of this money-making
machine, say, medical specialists, relinquish their share of the bounty, if
another component of the system, say, insurance companies or the pharmaceutical
industry, does not agree to relinquish theirs? “Profit”, apart from any other
social consideration, has been firmly established as a perfectly legitimate modus
operandi. None of the system’s moving parts sees themselves as doing
anything wrong. They are managing millions, in terms of payroll, equipment, and
infrastructure. They and their organizational charts deserve to be compensated
accordingly. That’s how our present system works. With everyone’s respective
golden goose designated as off limits before the discussion even begins, any
attempt at reform inevitably results in making an already complicated and
convoluted system even more so. With the net effect of the Sturm und Drang
amounting to little more than the proverbial rearranging of deck chairs on the
Titanic.

This is not to suggest our healthcare system should
operate “at cost”. One does not expect, for example, the supreme sacrifice
routinely provided by the consecrated religious who used to run our hospitals. Or
the zeal of the missionary orders of priests and nuns and doctors without
borders who are today bringing healthcare to the Third World. One is only
suggesting a degree of proportionately, a sense of “just price”.

But under the tenets of our present economic system, those
few with leverage can charge whatever they like for their product or service,
under the guise of “what the market will bear”. This leaves the vast majority
who have no leverage with making a choice between paying those prices, or doing
without. This may be an acceptable construct when the object in question is a
non-essential, such as the latest iPhone. But this formulation should be
rejected out of hand when essential medical care is at issue.

One need not be a dreaded liberal to realize our present
healthcare system is well past due for a major overhaul. One only need not be a
card-carrying conservative. In other words, a Catholic perspective needs to be
resurrected and applied, to improve how healthcare is dispensed. Would that we
were not so programmed to be political partisans, and so wedded to free market
capitalism – first, last, and always. We might be able to see things as they
should be, instead of so willing to reconcile ourselves to the way they are.

Railing against the perceived failure of Obamacare is
futile, unless we are prepared to simultaneously recognize the underlying need
for serious reform of the present system. The partisanship being encouraged by
conservatives merely lends our voices in support of the status quo.

Living
Machines: Bauhaus Architecture as Sexual Ideology by E. Michael Jones. Following up
his best selling books Degenerate Moderns and Dionysos Rising, E.
Michael Jones completes the trilogy as he reveals how modern architecture arose
out of the disordered lives of its creators, who catered to the new needs of
modern man as a sexual nomad, who would have no need for home or family, no
need to be rooted in a particular time or place or family or soil or culture. Living
Machines explains where that vision came from, where it led, and why it
ultimately failed. $24.95 + S&H, Paperback. Read Reviews

Dionysos
Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution out of the Spirit of Music by E. Michael Jones. Following up
his best seller, Degenerate Moderns, Jones reveals how major figures in
modern music projected their own immorality into the field of music, the main
vehicle of the cultural revolution in the West. For the first time, a unified
theory of music and cultural revolution links the works of Wagner, Nietzsche,
Schonberg, Jagger and others to show the connection between the demise of
classical music and the rise of rock 'n' roll. $24.95
+ S&H, Paperback. Read Reviews

Degenerate
Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior by E. Michael Jones. In this ground
breaking book, Jones shows how major determining leaders in modern thought and
culture have rationalized their own immoral behavior and projected it onto a
universal canvas. The main thesis of this book is that, in the intellectual
life, there are only two ultimate alternatives: either the thinker conforms
desire to truth or he conforms truth to desire. Degenerate Moderns is a
marvelous tour de force. Required reading for anyone who wishes to understand
the intellectual fashions of the Twentieth century. $24.95
+ S&H, Paperback. Read
Reviews